Hanging saddam

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:40 am

Was it due to the conflict with AL-Queda, Afghanistan and Iraq that led to the barbaric hanging of Saddam Hussain?

Was it mass hysteria that called for such an end to this man?

Was it really, Iraq's way of doing things, or did the new Iraqi powers give in to pressure from the West?

Is it just myself that found his televised (via mobile phones) execution a degredation of both partie's?

Surely, we were stooping to their level of torture and death, the very same that the West is trying to abolish, to go along with this?

For once, in the Iraq war, --- I was ashamed.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:27 pm

Scrat;1014062 wrote: I think it was his rivals that hung him, Americas role in it was mainly propagandistic. Simply a show to get the point across that we were letting the Iraqis run things. I think that the televising of his hanging was disgusting but even in death he stood tall, he was better in death than those who took his life can ever hope to be in my eyes.

Do I agree with it? Yes and no. Yes because a message needs to be sent to dictators that some things will not be tolerated, I didn't agree with it because I can understand why he did what he did. He was a strongarmed dictator, a ruthless individual and all of that BUT HE KEPT THE PEACE!!

That peace had a cost but nowhere near what the cost has been for Iraq since the invasion. I think the man died like the lion (I mean this literally) he was said to be and although I am less than pleased with people like him in this world, I think he was a necessary evil.

Thanks for your reply. I agree that it was his rivals trying to show the world that they would not longer stand for dictatorship but killing him in that fashion left me cold.

I have muslim friends and supporters of Saddam, and they told me that what he said, as they were goading him on the gallows was "Your brave".

We have been unable to mention Saddams name since he was hung and i have hung my head in shame to my friends.

What ever i feel about the war, i believe we stepped back 60 years in civilisation when we allowed that to happen.

Surely, we could have had some influence, intervened and shown the country the way?

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:06 pm

Dead men tell no tales :

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

Attached files

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:45 pm

Scrat;1014610 wrote: I won't even give them credit for that, they just wanted revenge. It was pure bloodlust and I have no doubt in my mind that most of the people Saddam offed deserved what they got and most (if not all) of the people in that room should have been swinging next to him.

It left me angry at the hypocrisy, I must say the people in charge there now for the most part deserve to die even more than Saddam.

There are places in this world that need a strong hand to keep the lid on things. The ME and the Caucasus are a couple. It is not good for outsiders to meddle, look at Chechneya, when the Russians/SU all but left the whole fabric of society disintegrated, innocent people began to die all for the needful power of a few.

I think the world would have been better served with Saddam in power, I think the world would have been better served with the SU intact, societies evolve over time and I think tend to change for the better.

How can we all talk about justice etc etc when we resorted to such a barbaric end?

I think your right, revenge came into it.

I know that my muslim friends lost every bit of respect they had for America and Britain that day. They never believed they would really go through with it.

I could not offer them any arguement on that one.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:21 pm

Whats wrong with revenge.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:32 am

RedGlitter;1016957 wrote: Whats wrong with revenge.

Revenge for what? What did Saddam Hussein ever do to any Western country that warranted his persecution? I'll agree he went downhill in the nineties but he was as good a leader as Iraq could have hoped for up until then.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:34 am

RedGlitter;1016957 wrote: Whats wrong with revenge.

Nothing to Saddam's rivals. we could ask, was it really necessary for American troops to take out Saddam's two sons, although barbaric mudering bastards they were, and grandson.

I know that American troops came under fire from Saddam's sons but i still feel that we need to show dignity in such situations.

I have absolutely no problem about the Iraq war, i never have but it was the way Saddam was executed and footage shown on national t.v. that sickened me.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:31 am

oscar;1017341 wrote: Nothing to Saddam's rivals. we could ask, was it really necessary for American troops to take out Saddam's two sons, although barbaric mudering bastards they were, and grandson.

I know that American troops came under fire from Saddam's sons but i still feel that we need to show dignity in such situations.

I have absolutely no problem about the Iraq war, i never have but it was the way Saddam was executed and footage shown on national t.v. that sickened me.

Sorry that sounded so flip. I was over tired and that was about all I could do before passing out on the keyboard.

I'm not sure how I felt about making it a media event and to be very honest, whether or not he did anything to the US to warrant his death is of very little concern to me. The fact that he was a brutal and often unfair killer is enough for me. He needed to be removed. No one should have to live under that type of murderous regime. It seems that the US has to go everywhere and try to right peoples' wrongs, or should I say other countries' wrongs and whether or not I agree with that, I do agree that Hussein needed to go. Whether by us or by his people or by someone else, I feel his death was long called for, as his existence was an insult to decent humanity. I don't know where you feel we could/should have shown more dignity? Maybe you would expand on that please? To me, that's like giving courtesy to Charles Manson, another insulting existence. We owe him nothing.

For the record I think we did well to end his sorry life. Yet in watching the hanging footage, I too felt sick. Not because I thought we were wrong but because any decent person would feel ill at the death of another no matter how warranted it may have been. I think that's a natural reaction. My personal thoughts were a little sad...sad that this scumbag could have used his life to better the existence of others, to educate, to help, to improve, to create a positive legacy. But he chose to be a murdering tyrant instead.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:45 am

RedGlitter;1017391 wrote: For the record I think we did well to end his sorry life. Yet in watching the hanging footage, I too felt sick. Not because I thought we were wrong but because any decent person would feel ill at the death of another no matter how warranted it may have been. I think that's a natural reaction. My personal thoughts were a little sad...sad that this scumbag could have used his life to better the existence of others, to educate, to help, to improve, to create a positive legacy. But he chose to be a murdering tyrant instead.

He bettered the existence of others, he educated, he helped to improve, he would even have created a positive legacy if he hadn't been pushed around by the Rulers of the Planet. His record stands comparison with any other Middle Eastern country in terms of internal improvements. He made this mistake of listening to Americans through the eighties, getting entrapped by them in the nineties and finally killed by them following their twelve-year rape of Iraq.

Which other Middle Eastern country did better than pre-war Iraq for its people in terms of education? Jobs? Improved social conditions?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:57 am

RedGlitter;1017391 wrote:

For the record I think we did well to end his sorry life. Yet in watching the hanging footage, I too felt sick. Not because I thought we were wrong but because any decent person would feel ill at the death of another no matter how warranted it may have been. I think that's a natural reaction. My personal thoughts were a little sad...sad that this scumbag could have used his life to better the existence of others, to educate, to help, to improve, to create a positive legacy. But he chose to be a murdering tyrant instead.

I have always and still do believe that the downfall of Saddam -- was -- Saddam himself.

As Spot said, he quite lost the plot in the latter years of his dictatorship.

I agee that he needed taking out.

He would always have been a threat to Kuwait and there is absolutely no arguement that he gassed his own people, the Kurds, in an ethnic cleansing programme. Chemical Ali, his cousin also deserved to be taken out.

I don't agree with British T.V. showing him in his underwear being examined after his capture. I don't agree with T.V. companie's and national newspapers buying up the mobile phone recordings of him going to the gallows. It was media greed that did this and revenge of his rivals to show the West what they had done.

His capture and execution was enough. They should have used dignity, using lethal injection and done it in private.

Just the same as we had the bodie's of Saddam's two sons plastered over our national papers.

I can understand that the Iraqi people needed media assurence that they were dead, but again, some dignity.

There again, i have seen footage of Iraqi children hanging from lamp-posts dead because they dared smile at an allied soldier or accept a piece of chocolate (candy). Saddam's elite guard had alot to answer for.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:24 am

oscar;1017417 wrote: He would always have been a threat to Kuwait and there is absolutely no arguement that he gassed his own people, the Kurds, in an ethnic cleansing programme. Chemical Ali, his cousin also deserved to be taken out.From the day it was carved out of the sand by colonial administrators Iraqis had always claimed that Kuwait was an Iraqi province, not a sovereign nation. Saddam was suckered into trying to take over Kuwait, firstly by the Kuwaities draining Iraqi oil reserves across the border and secondly by US envoys saying there was no State Department objection to Iraq reclaiming their missing province. The day after it happened the trap snapped shut and the US denounced what they'd up until then said was acceptable.

It's amazing that if "we" do it in wartime it's okay but if "they" do it in wartime it's criminal. Americans are too full of do what we say now, not what we did when we needed to. Take a good look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom ... d_Nagasaki which was, by the time it happened, nothing but a warning to other countries, an instruction to fear. It had nothing to do with saving any lives by then even if the program started out with that intention. And now? Iraq kills a tenth as many during a war and they have to pay for that decades later by losing over a million dead and three million displaced?

Go and read about Agent Orange if you want a horror story about destroying unarmed peasants. A nation that shores up its national pride by discounting its sins as allowed and inflating the sins of others as barbaric relies on its citizens to applaud on cue with uninformed me-too propagandist complacency. Americans are trained that way from their first day at school and God help them if they don't salute that blood-stained flag every time they're told to.

Flamethrower · Post by **Flamethrower** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:40 am

Rather simple justice really.

Commit genocide = meet a horrid death.

No foreign entity "made" or "trapped" him into doing that against the Kurds, (Are you listening spot?) therefore the punishment indeed fit the crime.

As to the feelings of disgust that many of the previous posters have expressed......that is the desired result of making such affairs fully public. The deterrent effect as you will. Bet you wouldn't want to meet YOUR end in such a fashion. Think about it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:43 am

Kuwait would have always been an issue due to the rich oil reserves.

The Kurds were never any real threat to him or the Elite Guard.

Flamethrower · Post by **Flamethrower** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:45 am

oscar;1017471 wrote: Kuwait would have always been an issue due to the rich oil reserves.

The Kurds were never any real threat to him or the Elite Guard.

Absolutely correct.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:57 am

Scrat;1017481 wrote: I'll second Spots post.

Are you so sure? Look at what has happened in Iraq since. How many people have died there since then? It is fact that one big reason Iraq is so quiet now is because the different sects have killed enough and ethnically cleansed enough people from their territories to be stable, if you can call it that.

Originally indoctrinated into the people by Saddam.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:21 am

Scrat;1017505 wrote: What are you saying? That Saddam taught those people to hate one another? That Saddam supported tribalism?

Saddam didn't tolerate tribal warfare, he didn't tolerate religious opression, women wore skirts in public if they wanted too. Christians lived next to Sunnis and Shia. With the fall of Saddam Iraqi civilization fell a 1000 years.

No, he tolerated his Elite Guard. He sat in his mansion with American money while they mass murdered for him.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:20 pm

Scrat;1017576 wrote: As much as I hate to say it I have begun to think that some things are necessary for the sake of saving lives in the long run.

That would certainly not include the turkey-shoot depicted at http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt04.html which had no justification at the time and for which none has ever emerged since. It was sheer wanton killing for the joy of killing by a people immersed in celebrating the efficient delivery of death on any scale they chose. Who on earth benefited from that disgusting hi-tech slaughter?

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:32 pm

They were conscripts, Jester. They were in full retreat. It was even called a turkey-shoot by the pilots. I hope they puked afterwards. Conscripts, for goodness sake! Does that make no difference at all to you? They had absolutely no choice whatever as to whether they were there or not, unlike every single American in theater.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:44 pm

Jester;1017637 wrote: Wrong, they were armed enemy combatants heading north with equipment that could make war in the future. The orders were no war material north, had the soldiers dismebarked, layed down their arms and walked north paralelle tot he highway at a safe diatnce fomr the materials unarmed they would not have been targeted, the purpose of the order was to destroy war materials.You can perhaps explain to me how a private Iraqi soldier would have received notification from the American high command of these pre-set "orders".

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:49 pm

Why do you excuse what America does?

I don't always. But I don't compare either. And I don't take part in America bashing which is so popular at FG, because I was always taught you don't crap where you sleep.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:55 pm

Jester;1017644 wrote: I know you want to make the US out to be total cold blooded killers so you can justify your hate of america and the Bush administration, but its just not the case, in war, war materials are a common target.

So I see from the photo I linked to. The photo-story has a lot of other images from the same day though. Not all the targets would qualify under your antiseptic description of "war materials".

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:19 pm

You know, I'd believe you that this was dispassionate objective killing without emotion were it not for the whooping scenes of triumph that accompanied the images in 1991 with US troops bragging about the slaughter. A previous generation used "gook" to dehumanize their targets, those people settled for towelhead. I apologize - "raghead".

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:22 pm

I'm sorry Spot but i looked at all the images and all i see is anti-allied forces propoganda.

I know that i should be agreeing with my fellow country-man. but on this one, i can't.

I've looked at the images and i see:

Iraq soldiers, armed, retreating from Kuwait, yes. They should not have advanced illegally into Kuwait in the first place.

Allied forces burying carbonised Iraq soldiers into mass graves, yes. They are not bulldozing them into mass graves like The Elite Guard governed by Saddam, did to the Kurd bodie's. Also, they are Iraq soldiers, not women, children and babies slaughtered by Saddam. The Iraq soldiers would have died quickly, unlike the Kurd babies who were slowley gassed with biological warfare.

An Iraq child killed by Allied forces as they flee to Turkey, yes. Allied forces were delivering aid to them, helping them, it was not deliberate. The Kurds were fleeing the border of Turkey in fear of retaliation from Saddam's forces, not the Allied forces.

Kuwait oil fields ablaze, yes. Down right bloody revenge for Iraqi soldiers failed invasion of another country. It took a year of resources to put the fires out.

I see a picture of an American soldier helping an injured Iraqi soldier.

I see Iraqi soldiers being taken prisoner. Yes, they were very willing to give themselves up. Only in the prayer that allied forces would not be-head their children if they returned to Baghdad as failed.

Are you really saying Spot that allied forces be-headed Iraq soldiers?

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:37 pm

oscar;1017675 wrote: I'm sorry Spot but i looked at all the images and all i see is anti-allied forces propoganda.

I know that i should be agreeing with my fellow country-man. but on this one, i can't.Propaganda? It's a photo-essay taken on site, at the time, how on earth do you think it can be untrue?

It's a side issue though. I wasn't comparing the gassing of the Kurds with that, that was an issue which came up with Jester. I compared the gassing of the Kurds with the atomic explosions in Japan, if you'd like to go back and check.

If anyone wants to know how I'll react to "oh it saved a lot of lives", no it didn't. Japan was trying to surrender on terms. The US insisted on unconditional surrender. The US ended up, after showing the world it was top dog, settling for a conditional surrender which safeguarded the essential Japanese requirement. Those two explosions saved zero American lives and never could have. What they did was show Russia which of them was in the driving seat. Given that you now know how I'd react, perhaps we can avoid going down that side-track.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:41 pm

Scrat;1017682 wrote: That incident destroyed a lot of material that would have been used at a later date.

I'm in no doubt about it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:52 pm

spot;1017710 wrote: Propaganda? It's a photo-essay taken on site, at the time, how on earth do you think it can be untrue?

It's a side issue though. I wasn't comparing the gassing of the Kurds with that, that was an issue which came up with Jester. I compared the gassing of the Kurds with the atomic explosions in Japan, if you'd like to go back and check.

If anyone wants to know how I'll react to "oh it saved a lot of lives", no it didn't. Japan was trying to surrender on terms. The US insisted on unconditional surrender. The US ended up, after showing the world it was top dog, settling for a conditional surrender which safeguarded the essential Japanese requirement. Those two explosions saved zero American lives and never could have. What they did was show Russia which of them was in the driving seat. Given that you now know how I'd react, perhaps we can avoid going down that side-track.

I have also seen photo-essays of dead Kurds.

Hiroshima -- I with you on that one. Un-necessary. It didn't save any American lives but i believe the bombing of Iraq soldiers from Kuwait was necessary. They would have gone on to kill our own troops.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:59 pm

oscar;1017752 wrote: I have also seen photo-essays of dead Kurds.I'm sure they exist. Some Iraqi Kurds were fighting with Iran in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s when these events happened, I'm not surprised large numbers of them died. I do think your "Kurd babies who were slowly gassed with biological warfare" needs some support - I know of no instance when biological agents were ever used by Iraq.

The CIA stated for years afterwards that the chemical gassing of Kurds was committed by the Iranians, not the Iraqis, in the middle of a tightly -balanced part of the battlefield. That the US changed its account of who was responsible at the same time as turning against Iraq in the early 90s just shows how cynical these leaders of public opinion can get when they try.

i believe the bombing of Iraq soldiers from Kuwait was necessary. They would have gone on to kill our own troops.How? The war was over! The formal declaration of the end of hostilities by the Americans was on the following day (28th February), the Iraqis had called it off days before.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:14 pm

spot;1017766 wrote: I'm sure they exist. Some Iraqi Kurds were fighting with Iran in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s when these events happened, I'm not surprised large numbers of them died. I do think your "Kurd babies who were slowly gassed with biological warfare" needs some support - I know of no instance when biological agents were ever used by Iraq.

The CIA stated for years afterwards that the chemical gassing of Kurds was committed by the Iranians, not the Iraqis, in the middle of a tightly -balanced part of the battlefield. That the US changed its account of who was responsible at the same time as turning against Iraq in the early 90s just shows how cynical these leaders of public opinion can get when they try.

How? The war was over! The formal declaration of the end of hostilities by the Americans was on the following day (28th February), the Iraqis had called it off days before.

We all know the C.I.A. is one of the most corrupt organisations in existence.

As you know Spot, i have many muslim friends, some Turkish. we have discussed the Kurds fleeing to turkey and they have always told me (they were living there at the time) that it was Saddam they were fleeing and it was common knowledge it was Saddam who ordered their ethnic cleansing.

Did we not try everything with Saddam before entering iraq. Sanctions, trade embargo's, weapons inspectores, where Saddam was blatently difficult even bragging that he was moving WMD's around the country to avoid detection.?

I can not reason that the war was over. The Elite Guard had entered Kuwait illegally, they were warned in plenty of time to withdraw. Only after setting the oil fields ablaze in revenge for their failed invasion into Kuwait, did they want an end to the war.

I just don't think it works like that.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:16 pm

I have seen much evidence of good done by allied forces. The re-building of hospitals, restoring power, re-building schools etc.

It is due to the Iraq/Iran war that i still believe, they are aggressors even against their own people.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:24 pm

oscar;1017796 wrote: As you know Spot, i have many muslim friends, some Turkish. we have discussed the Kurds fleeing to turkey and they have always told me (they were living there at the time) that it was Saddam they were fleeing and it was common knowledge it was Saddam who ordered their ethnic cleansing.If they'd been ethnically cleansed there'd not be any left there. The north of Iraq is nothing but Kurds. They weren't ethnically cleansed. The use of chemical weapons, on a single day, in a single Kurdish town, was on a particularly stressed hand-to-hand battlefield between Iraqis, Iranians and Kurds at the height of the Iraq-Iran war. The way you talk about it you make it sound like a normal town in peacetime and suddenly "Chemical Ali" and a brigade of murderers all turn up and turn stop-valves on their cylinders. It wasn't like that, it was a battlefield which changed hands several times.

This might be the easiest place to get contemporary reports and modern commentary side by side.By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Turks regularly kill Iraqi Kurds too, you know. It's a sort of sport in the Middle East whenever things get dull. There even used to be Armenians in the old days.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:42 pm

spot;1017806 wrote: If they'd been ethnically cleansed there'd not be any left there. The north of Iraq is nothing but Kurds. They weren't ethnically cleansed. The use of chemical weapons, on a single day, in a single Kurdish town, was on a particularly stressed hand-to-hand battlefield between Iraqis, Iranians and Kurds at the height of the Iraq-Iran war. The way you talk about it you make it sound like a normal town in peacetime and suddenly "Chemical Ali" and a brigade of murderers all turn up and turn stop-valves on their cylinders. It wasn't like that, it was a battlefield which changed hands several times.

Turks regularly kill Iraqi Kurds too, you know. It's a sort of sport in the Middle East whenever things get dull. There even used to be Armenians in the old days.

So where exactly did the gas come from?

I have had many a debate with my turkish pals about the whole Turkish empire bit but have never heard them speak of killing Kurds. If it were true, why didn't they slaughter them as soon as they came over the turkish border?

Why did the Kurds feel it was safe to flee to Turkey? I will ask them tomorrow when i see them to see what they say.

Again, what was the whole Iraq/Iran war, if not aggression by Saddam?

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:48 pm

oscar;1017829 wrote: Again, what was the whole Iraq/Iran war, if not aggression by Saddam?I apologize, I extended my previous post just before you replied to it, adding the extract.

The anti-American Iranian revolution had happened in 1979. By September 1980 Reagan had been in power for eight months, my own belief is that his administration egged the Iraqis into attacking Iran on the basis that it might topple the Islamic Revolution and allow the US to re-establish the pro-American rulers who'd been ejected. There was the matter of the 200 day US Embassy takeover to avenge as well. Whether the US egged Iraq into the war or not, they definitely kept Iraq supplied with spares to keep the war going, as well as satellite imagery of Iranian troop deployments.

Why did the Kurds feel it was safe to flee to Turkey? I will ask them tomorrow when i see them to see what they say.The West had declared "safe havens" in the border region and kept them supplied that winter, I doubt whether the Turks had a lot of choice in the matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish-Kurdish_conflict discusses Turkish/Kurd relations:The Turkey–Kurdistan Workers Party conflict is between Republic of Turkey and the ethnic secessionist Kurdish guerrilla group which uses threat of force against both civilian and military targets for the purpose of achieving its political goal. The conflict is located in the East and Southeast Anatolia and Northern Iraq. The campaign of armed violence began in 1978, the rural-based insurgency began in 1984 with the urban terrorism throughout this period.

According to official figures released by the Turkish military for the 1984-2008 period, the conflict has resulted in the capture of 14,000 PKK members, and the death of 32,000 PKK members, 6,482 soldiers, and 5,560 civilians. The current membership of the PKK is approximately 4,000 to 5,000 militants of whom 3,000 to 3,500 are located in northern Iraq.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:24 pm

spot;1017844 wrote: I apologize, I extended my previous post just before you replied to it, adding the extract.

The anti-American Iranian revolution had happened in 1979. By September 1980 Reagan had been in power for eight months, my own belief is that his administration egged the Iraqis into attacking Iran on the basis that it might topple the Islamic Revolution and allow the US to re-establish the pro-American rulers who'd been ejected. There was the matter of the 200 day US Embassy takeover to avenge as well. Whether the US egged Iraq into the war or not, they definitely kept Iraq supplied with spares to keep the war going, as well as satellite imagery of Iranian troop deployments.

Interesting again that an American administration is being blamed for egging the Iraqis on.

Fowzi Badavi Nejad was one of six terrorists who took over the Iranian Embassy in London of May 1980 and took 26 people hostage, including Embassy Personnel, visitors and two BBC journalists.

After the gunmen threatened to kill a hostage every half an hour the British Special Air Services (SAS) stormed the building and ended the siege. During the six day incident, the gang killed two hostages and pushed the body of one out onto the Embassy steps.

The gunmen were members of a seperatist Iraninan Group called The Democratic Revolutionary Front for Arabistan, which was financed by SADDAM HUSSAIN.

Was it really down to Raegan?

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:32 pm

oscar;1017877 wrote: Was it really down to Reagan?

Who can tell? They were pretty much sleeping with each other by then. Iran was the common enemy. One can scarcely ask the gunmen, can one.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:37 pm

spot;1017885 wrote: Who can tell? They were pretty much sleeping with each other by then. Iran was the common enemy. One can scarcely ask the gunmen, can one.

But i was always under the impression that it was Iraq that invaded Iran as the aggressor. Again, Saddam Hussain.

This is not Spot and Oscar's forum, where are our American chums in this debate?